Most, or all, of the reviews I have seen of Windows 8 emphasize that the tiled Metro Start Screen is awkward to use on a traditional keyboard/mouse equipped desktop PC. Maybe one or two of the reviews try to sing the praises of the new Start Screen, but the details of the reviews actually show how cumbersome the reviewer thought it really was.

The whole point of the new UI for Windows 8 is supposedly for ease of use on tablets, and similarity to the Windows Phone 8. This will allow the user to work comfortably on all three types of devices, Desktop PCs, Tablets, and Windows Phone 8, without having to learn a new UI on each one of the devices. Similar to Apple's iOS "ecosystem."

In none of the articles I have seen do they mention using a desktop computer that is running Windows 7 as part of the "ecosystem." True that will result in users having to know two different UIs, but most of them (us) are well versed in use of the Windows XP/Windows 7 UI. And in either case, all devices on Win. 8, or pc on Win. 7 but tablet and phone on Win. 8, the user is going to have to learn to use the new UI that is no-longer-called-Metro. But we are already using different UIs on our phones, tablets, and desktop pcs. Our minds are already able to handle two or even three different UIs. Manufacturers of Android phones each differentiate their phones with their own customized UI, and then they will change it around when they send a major over-the-air upgrade to the OS. Users wind up having to learn to use a different interface if they change phones or tablets, or when a major OTA upgrade comes along. Yet the public and reviewers rarely gripe about that. Why not also review and possibly promote Win. 8's ability to be easy and intuitive to use on a mobile device, yet network seamlessly with desktops running Windows 7?

It seems like a big omission that the reviews have all left that issue out. Microsoft may have its own motives to promote Win. 8 across all three platforms, so they wouldn't likely promote using Windows 7 on the desktop pcs when they can unify the UI across all three devices. But it is amazing that none of the reviewers have covered it.

Since I am curious about the compatibility of Win. 8 with Windows 7, I would like to see some reviews of how they operate together. I'd also like to see how people react to Win. 8 if they can operate seamlessly across pc, tablet, and phone using Win.8 on the mobile devices and Windows 7 on the pc. I'd almost bet that they would like it better than being forced to the new UI on the desktop PCs, because they will still be using the UI they are very comfortable with on the PC.

This post is kind of a random thought, but it interests me. Thanks for reading through it, and please let me know your thoughts. Or let me know if you have tested the two UIs together as outlined above.

This is still a long way from your answer (because it is admittedly an incomplete review), but its worth a read if you are considering a W8 phone. This review does drop a few juicy snippets of information as to how W8 on a phone (or tablet) will work with any OS.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6415/wind ... 8x-preview

As far as I am concerned W8 on the phone is a contender to replace my Blackberry so I am also waiting for more details as to how it will work with W7 simply because I am, not doing to downgrade my OS to W8.


Andy

That was an interesting and thorough review, thanks Andy.

Since I have a 3.5" hard drive with the Windows 8 RTM on it, time permitting, I might just test it in reverse so to speak: that is put Windows 8 on the desktop PC, and use Windows 7 on my laptop to see how they work together. That may or may not have predictive value for the reverse situation, 8 on a mobile device, and 7 on a desktop PC. But, if it is an utter disaster, then that would tend to make me wary.

By the way, since you are considering a WP8 to replace your Blackberry, I'd like to pass along my experiences with HTC: Both of the smart phones I have owned are HTC devices, first a Droid Eris, and now, a Rezound. I think these phones are nearly identical to the HTC Hero and the HTC Sensation XE. They are both outstanding phones. Period. I really did not need to buy the Rezound because my 2 year old Eris was still working very well. It, and probably the Hero, are underrated phones. While they can't run apps that require an OS above Android 2.1, they do a great job with what they can run. I just wanted to be able to run apps that required newer versions of Android.

The Rezound, but not the Sensation XE, has a screen that has to be seen to be believed. The sharpness is incredible. The screen is a 720p HD screen, and was the first real HD screen on a smartphone in the US. It also has the processor power, GPU power, and memory (DDR2, no less) to manage the high res. display at crisp speeds, and without any lag. Power and speed wise, the thing is a beast. Both the Rezound and the Eris are solid phones finished in high quality materials (for a smartphone) and convey that impression by the way they feel as well.

Build quality of the HTC phones I have had is excellent, aesthetic design was very, very good, and the engineering design is superb as well. Customer service at HTC has been great.

Hence, if you are considering a WP 8, look over the HTC 8X. It is built by a company that has very much impressed me with their abilities.

This is new today (30th October 2012).

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/windows-8 ... 32555.html


Andy

Why on earth shouldn't they work together? I'm not aware that M$ changed any protocols or procedures to exclude Win7 and hence WinVista and WinXP working with Win8.

If it doesn' work, most likely because of user related errors.

The question is not so much "do they work together", but how well do they work together. No one can be certain until they try it, but you can get a very good idea by reading reviews and other peoples experiences.


Andy

If they wouldn't work well together, M$ would go broke because of being sued. This seems to me just like speculation if the allnew 2013 Ford would drive on our old streets without any problems, because, hey, that's a new shape and a new dashboard.

Pappnaas, your logic would seem to also dictate against Microsoft changing the UI so radically. Or, at least, removing the ability to change to a fully functional version of the more familiar Windows 7 interface.

Also, part of my reasoning is based on the fact that MS seems determined to make us all use Win. 8 and its new interface. If they would go as far as they have, it is no real leap to some differences in networking compatibility.

Further, Win. 8 brings a new file system, ReFS. ReFS may not be implemented across all of the variants of win 8 at release, but MS plans to eventually spread it out to all versions of Win 8, for all drives. Now, with a mobile system, pad, laptop, or phone using the ReFS, how will the NTFS based Windows 7 PC be able to read the ReFS drives. It seems reasonable to believe that MS has included some means for compatibility, but that is not guaranteed. Maybe I have missed it, but that issue has not been addressed in the reviews that I have read. Also, the Win. 8 phones probably don't use ReFS.

It occurred to me last night that I have a 20GB and possibly a 30GB laptop drive(s). Both are unused. Thus, again, if time permits, I may be able to install Win. 8 on the laptop and try it out connected to my Windows 7 desktop. But don't hold your breath waiting for results. It may take a while.

Edit to include: Windows 8 requires a 1GHz processor that supports PAE, NX, and SSE2. It also requires a graphics system that is DirectX 9 compatible and has a WDDM driver. My laptop is okay with the graphics driver, but the processor speed is just a hair to low: the laptop is a 10+ year old HP Omnibook 6100 with a 933MHz Pentium III M processor. It does run Windows 7 (32-bit) just fine. Windows 7 never balked about the clock speed on installation. But if Win. 8 does a more thorough check of the processor speed, then it won't install. But, I'll likely try it out anyway.

No, Pappnaas's logic is correct. While Windows 8 may have a radically different UI, it doesn't prevent you from doing anything that Windows 7 could do. It just may do things in a different way. While the ARM RT version has restrictions, the normal x86 Windows 8 will run anything that Windows 7 can.

Backwards compatibly is a big thing for Microsoft. Windows 8 32 bit can run apps over 30 years old with no changes, no other desktop or small server OS even comes close to that. The only reason the 64 bit version can't go that far back is AMD's fault, not MS.

Did you know that Vista/2008 and above use a completely different protocol from XP/2003 and below when sharing files? Did you ever notice any problems sharing files between say Windows 7 and XP? Probably not, most people don't. People don't know because they never noticed any problems, both old and new share files just fine. Again, backwards compatibly is a really big thing to Microsoft. It's a huge leap to think MS will break network compatibility.

I've personally tried the above situation and can confirm that Windows 8 can talk to OSes as far back as NT4 and 98 without problems.

ReFS is only on Server 2012, not any desktop or mobile versions. There is no evidence that MS want's to spread it to other versions right now.

N7SC, I don't want to offend you but your post sounds alot like the whole "Vista will DRM your files" scare crap from a few years ago. Windows 8 has lots of problems and Metro sucks on a desktop, but compatibly is not one of them.

A Pentium III supports neither NX or SSE2, so if Windows 8 does require them it won't work. Also, it's very unlikely for a P3 laptop to have a DX9 video card in it. A quick google shows the Omnibook 6100 as having a 16 MB Mobility Radeon, not even close to what is needed.

Washu,

1. I stand by my first point: "Pappnaas, your logic would seem to also dictate against Microsoft changing the UI so radically. Or, at least, removing the ability to change to a fully functional version of the more familiar Windows 7 interface." Pappanaas's logic about MS going broke due to law suits if they broke easy compatibility with Windows 7 and XT also applies to Win. 8 compatibly with earlier versions. That is because the same problem arises for businesses either way. That problem is huge new expense. Either the businesses pay up front for conversion of their servers to Win. 8, or they lose productivity of their workers as the workers struggle with the new UI. Plain, old end users will also resist changing because of the difficulty with the new UI. That will cost MS sales. Further Pappanaas's analogy about the Ford is flawed. He speaks of only aesthetic changes in the Ford. How would that analogy stand up if the changes to the Ford were to make the car much harder to drive for those used to the 2012 model? There were UI features that were in earlier versions of Win. 8 that were much like Windows 7, but MS removed them before the RTM version.

2. You may have a point about file protocols and Windows 7 compatibility with XP. But my point is NOT that they would certainly break compatibility, but that breaking compatibility seems no worse than what they are doing by giving us no choice but to use the new UI.

3. You said: "Again, backwards compatibly is a really big thing to Microsoft." I say apparently it is not when it comes to human interaction with desktop computers. See my remarks, above, about the new UI. MS could have easily written Win. 8 to detect the presence of a mouse, external keyboard, and the lack of a touch screen monitor, and under that condition, offer the user the choice of booting up in either the Metro screen, or the classic desktop. Remember that XP had the ability to look just like Windows 2000 if you wanted it to.

4. That ReFS will eventually be spread to the client version of Windows 8 comes from an article on Tom's IT PRO, by Kevin Parrish. Here: http://www.tomsitpro.com/articles/release_candidate-windows_8_server_2012-ReFS-data_center,1-252.html Take note of the last sentence of the third (non italicized) paragraph.

5. The Pentium IIIM (and the IIIS) is not a low power version of the lowly Pentium III, but a much more advanced chip known as Tualatin. You are right about the plain old PIII, lacking SSE 2, and I have conflicting info about the Tualatin chips. As for the graphics abilities of my laptop, I certainly have known damn well what hardware it has, and for over 10 years! MS's requirements for Windows 7 state the same thing for the video card requirements as the requirements for Win. 8: Direct X 9 compatible video card with WDDM drivers. Look it up on their web site. But Windows 7 (32) installed on my Omnibook 6100 and works just fine. Amazingly well. So maybe MS's "requirements" for Win. 8 are similarly loose and not enforced.

You are completely missing the point. Breaking networking would break very basic functionality which Windows has had for years. Again, the different UI of Windows 8 does not change what the OS can do, just how it is done. Equating a different UI with breaking core functionality is crazy.

The car analogy works well if you include something like the BMW iDrive. It has a widely different interface for many functions that many did not like. However it could still do everything any other car could do. Comparing a UI change to network functionality is like saying BMW will remove the ability to reverse in the next iDrive.


I'm not seeing any references to something official from MS in that one. And really, does it matter? Did the world end when XP came out and defaulted to NTFS and 98 couldn't read it? It's not like the average user cares about file systems at all other than USB sticks and memory cards. Those will stay some variant of FAT for years to come. Mobile devices will connect as media instead of mass storage just like newer Android devices, so again the underlying file system is irrelevant.


A Tualtin is just a process shrink with more cache then the older PIIIs, nothing more. It has no additional instructions, no SSE2 and no NX support.


If you followed your own advice you would have found out that Vista and 7 support XDDM video drivers (XP/2000 drivers) but Win 8 does not. It will still fall back to un-accelerated VGA if it can, but performance will suck.

No, you are missing the point. An important "core functionality" of an OS is to be useful and to allow users to accomplish whatever they want to do. If the UI gets in the way and prevents use of the OS, or severely curtails it, then it doesn't matter whether or not networking is broken, as the user may never get far enough to find out.


Hardly. The iDrive is just about the same type of infotainment system as many other cars use, but with one of bmw's flashy marketing names attached to it as well as their own interface (deemed superior by them, of course). It has nothing to do with the core functionality of a car. Read what I said about making the car more difficult to DRIVE. That is to actually make it go somewhere, and making that "somewhere" where you want it to go. I meant loss of functionality, real car functionality, not just fiddling with the air conditioning and radio.


Hmm, I am not seeing any citations to anything from MS from you either.


Oh, good God, my mistake. Please forgive me for not realizing that adding hardware prefetch comes along automatically with a die shrink. I apologize.


What advice are you talking about? You may be right that MS is finally meaning what they say in system requirements. I no longer have a MSDN subscription, and I no longer care about what ever goes on there. But, a quick look after seeing your haughty reply shows that you are right. Congrats. Now, if you read why I would install win. 8 on my laptop, you'd see that it would be only for a day or two to see how well a Win. 8 client works networked with a Windows 7 Professional machine. So, regarding the video driver, it should run either way, and that is all I will need. Granted, this is not the same as using a proper server OS, like 2008 R2, on the desktop, but it is the closest I have right now. Unless I feel like digging around and seeing if MS is giving away any trial versions of a pre-Server 2012 OS. But I don't.

Finally, go back and reread the first few posts of this thread. You should notice that it is not about attempting to shoot down anyone else's concerns. It is about speculation as to whether Microsoft took all the time necessary to insure that Win. 8 will work easily and well with Windows 7 machines, and Windows Server 2008 R2 servers (and earlier). My point is that until we know for sure, the drastic step of forcing users to abandon the familiar and very productive Windows 7 (and earlier) UI might just foreshadow some equally baloney reason for them to have done something similar at deeper levels of the OS and its server variants.

Then i'd advive you to read some articles regarding the changes from win7 to win8, no changes whatsoever will prevent a win8 from doing everything a win7 could do. Of course, not talking about win8 rt.

Speculation? What Speculation? The only one speculating here is you. Some of use have actually tried Windows 8 and know that everything you are speculating about is wrong and it works fine with older versions.

Windows 8 has been available for a while if you want it and many many people have tried it. If there were any actual compatibility problems the net would be in an even bigger uproar about it. The only thing Win 8 can be truly bashed about is the UI, everything else works as expected and in some cases better than older versions. Again, people have actually tried it and found that your concerns are completely unfounded.

Reread the first sentence of the second paragraph of my second post on this thread. It is the third post overall.

I have had Win. 8 since the first preview, then, recently got the RTM version. The RTM version was tried out on my desktop for a week by putting it on a hard drive that is not normally connected to the machine. So I guess you could say that I have tried Win. 8. But I have not tried it on a mobile device that is networked to my Windows 7 desktop PC. And that is why I am concerned about whether MS has taken care to insure perfect compatibility with older OSs.

I never said that anyone else is speculating. Just that this thread was about speculation blah, blah. And, it is clearly about my speculation, and seeking more information to address my questions. Andyb and Pappanaas have responded with information that would help me determine if my speculation is right or wrong.



Your point about the net being in an even bigger uproar about it had Win. 8 had compatibility problems (specifically in the networking dept, and to Windows 7 machines), is something that I overlooked. Good point.

Your experience with Win. 8, and your observation about the net, are helpful points. However the tone of your posts in this thread began with one that was rife with speculation and only alluded to one alleged potential fact: that you had tested Win. 8 with a number of older OSs. It also contained a remark that my post sounds like the Vista will DRM your files scare from the past. No where do I say that MS WILL break compatibility, but question why networking compatibility has never been mentioned in a review that I have seen, and, if it is present in any info. from MS, it is certainly not prominent, front and center.

From there you began launching what could easily be interpreted to be ad hominem attacks to undermine my reasoning and knowledge. But my reasoning, or speculation is NOT what this thread is about. Nor is it about my knowledge. It is about the questions I have about finding out the details of how Win. 8 on mobile devices will interact with Windows 7 on a desktop machine.

While you did post a couple, like two, points that were correct and useful, most of the rest of your posts were either not factual, contained flawed reason, based on your lack of understanding of my wanting some info to apply to add to my incomplete understanding of Win. 8, and seemed pretty hostile. It would have been a greater help to me if you had politely made your two points, then provided some information about your experiences about Win. 8 (32 bit) working so well with the older OSs, and how and why the 64-bit version has problems. It would have also gone a long way to convincing me that you were as mature and reasonable as most of the people who post here, on SPCR. Instead you have clearly shown and convinced me that you are, at best, a rude and pushy person who will try to make a point (Win. 8 works well with Windows 7) by insulting the one who is seeking more information. All while providing only a little bit of actual information. I don't want to discuss what you have convinced me you are at the worst. But it ain't good.

Now, if you can please politely provide some better information about your experiments with Win. 8 clients connecting to Windows 7 machines, and their ability to network seamlessly together, I would greatly appreciate it.

N7SC:

I do apologize for coming across as rude. However, while it is now clear that it was unintentional, your question came across as a classic case FUD. You seemed to be asking not for information, but to spread inflammatory what if scenarios. I did read your third post before I wrote anything and that only strengthened my now incorrect thought that you were spreading FUD. If you had it and tried it then you would have already had your answer and you would have never needed to ask.

The reason you haven't found much information on compatibility is that MS, like everyone else, only hypes up what has changed. They are not hiding the UI changes, or the limitations of the RT version. There isn't much point to releasing a several hundred page press release of everything that is the same as previous versions. The question is doubly odd in that MS, for all their many faults, strives to keep things compatible in their main OSes on a programming and protocol level and this is well known.

The 64 bit version has no networking compatibility issues either. My point was that the 64 bit version has application limitations. It cannot run 16 bit apps, but again that is AMD's "fault" for how the 64 bit architecture works and not Microsoft's. Microsoft can't do anything about it, no OS can short of running a full VM. Microsoft made no attempt to hide this fact either, and the 64 bit OSes, including 8, have some 16 bit installer shims to help some apps work.

People used to call me an MS shill for defending Vista, but 90% of it's supposed faults were false or what if scenarios like you posted. What do I think of Vista? I think it is a slow piece of crap that I would never voluntarily use, but it doesn't need false accusations to make it shit. Neither does Windows 8. It will stand or fall on the UI changes, the rest is almost irrelevant as the other changes are so relatively minor.

I'd be very happy to tell you about my networking tests with Windows 8, but there isn't much to say other than it "just works". Sure there are some user permission issues depending on the scenario, but those exist just the same in 7 and below. There are some security issues with really old OSes like NT4, but again those problems existed long before Win 8.

Washu,

Thank you for apologizing. It was certainly not my intent to start up trouble with the original post. However, while to me it is clearly a question that occurs because of the supporting reasoning stated, it might be possible for it to be interpreted as FUD. It was not intended to be anything but my internal reasons that support my wondering about the possibility that MS might screw up the networking to older OSs as well as the UI. I sure don't want to contribute to all the FUD that is out there these days, about almost anything.

Thanks too for the info you have gathered on Win. 8 compatibility with older operating systems. Your info does make me breathe easier about that.

There certainly is a lot of FUD out there about Win. 8. For example, I seem to recall one review that said or very, very strongly implied that Win. 8 did not support multiple active windows or multitasking. That is utter baloney. It MAY (I'm not sure) not allow any thing but full screen windows on the desktop, but it sure does allow for multiple programs to be running, and active at the same time. One of the first tests I ran it through was to open up IE10, start some streaming audio, and record it with Adobe Audition CS 6 while listening to it. Worked like a charm. And I was also playing around on the web, in a different tab in IE 10, at the same time. Finding the control panel so I could set everything up correctly was not near as easy as finding the CP on any previous version of Windows. But, when the control panel was located everything was as easy as before.

Thanks again for setting things straight, and I apologize to you if any of my posts were rude to you.